Jeffers v. Jeffers
Citations
- 139 Ill. 368
- 28 N.E. 913
Syllabus
<p>1. Partition in chancery—concessions in bill establishing rights •of defendants. A party died testate, leaving nine children living and four grandchildren of a deceased son, and by his will directed that after the death of his widow, to whom he had devised his entire estate during her lifetime, each of the children should share equally in all that remained of his property. The nine children filed their bill for partition of the land of their deceased father, against the grandchildren, in and by which the complainants claimed each a tenth part, conceding the right of the defendants to the remaining one-tenth. All parties and the court treated the case as though the defendants were •entitled to one-tenth of the estate, until after the filing of the master’s report finding the interest of the defendants as not chargeable with their father’s debt due the estate, when the complainants, by an exception, attempted to deny the right of the defendants to take anything under the will: Held, that complainants, by their own bill, and pro•ceedings under it, established the rights of the defendants to a share in the lands, and could not thereafter be allowed to question the defendants’ rights under the will.</p> <p>2. Same—set-off against a legacy. A debt due from a legatee to the testator’s estate can not be set off against a legacy or devise, on a bill for partition of real estate, though the executor may be a party, when the object of the suit is not to collect debts, but merely to have such •debt taken into account in making distribution of the estate.</p> <p>3. A testator devised his entire estate remaining after the death of his widow, to his nine children living and the heirs of a deceased son, who was indebted to him. Several of the children living were also indebted to his estate, which indebtedness was not collected: Held, that the indebtedness of the deceased son could not, without the consent of his children, be set off against their share in the grandfather’s •est
Judges: Wilkin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Meppen v. MeppenIllinois Supreme Court· 1945-11-21· cited 8×
- Gruenewald v. NeuIllinois Supreme Court· 1905-04-17· cited 8×
- Jordan v. JordanIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-06-22· cited 7×
- Esmond v. EsmondAppellate Court of Illinois· 1909-10-19· cited 7×
- Hesley v. ShawAppellate Court of Illinois· 1905-04-20· cited 5×
- Pollock v. CantlinAppellate Court of Illinois· 1929-05-14· cited 4×
- Yeazel v. YeazelAppellate Court of Illinois· 1941-11-03· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.